I heard that the Lodi tail strike lawsuit was decided in favor of the dropzone, and that is wonderful news and is as it should be.

With that in mind, I'd like to open a discussion of the USPA Safety Day advertisement on page 64 of the January 2010 Parachutist magazine.

For your convenience, I have uploaded a scan of the item so everybody can see it even if you don't have the magazine handy.

This advertisement says a number of things that I have significant issues with.

They began by saying that the tail of the aircraft was "much lower than it should have been..." because the pilot was continuing to climb during the exit.

They also say that to help avoid a tail strike, a pilot must "provide skydivers with a properly configured aircraft for every exit".

As I see it, these statements shift a great deal of the responsibility for a safe jump away from the jumper and towards the pilot.

I find that very disturbing.

I worry that if this had been published by USPA early enough, the plaintiff's lawyers in the Lodi tail strike case could have argued that the national organization was taking the position that the pilot should be found at fault in that accident.

Personally, I believe that if I informed the pilot that I wanted to exit on the climbing low pass, a climbing aircraft is "properly configured" per the agreement between the pilot and myself. I believe that it is then completely up to me to conduct the jump so as not to jeopardize the aircraft and the other jumpers. Should I fail to do that, it in no way reflects on the pilot; he did exactly what he was supposed to do.

I invite discussion regarding this ad, and I also invite USPA members to express their feelings, whether for or against the ad, to their USPA BOD members so that they can get a fair reading of the sentiments of the membership.

(FYI Since I wrote this, I have recently learned that the same ad ran in the February Parachutist. I have not received my copy, so I have not personally verified this, nor do I know that location of the ad.)

I think it could be a problem with training as well as not being used to hop&pops.

In AFF you get taught how to do a poised exit, and they tell you to do the stable exit for your h&p for your A lic. The problem could come when they get on a plane as an experienced jumper, with a pilot who is flying loads as fast as they can, no cut/climbing exit. Guy thinks he needs to do the poised exit, doesnt think about the tail. Not quite anyones fault IMO, its more like the chain of events.

Maybe make an emphasis on students to learn the pitch of the aircraft (or is that the yaw?) as soon as you can start teaching them, so they can feel it out and know they need to adjust their exit accordingly.

(FYI Since I wrote this, I have recently learned that the same ad ran in the February Parachutist. I have not received my copy, so I have not personally verified this, nor do I know that location of the ad.)

It is a jumpers responsibility to jump safely and DZ's responsibility to provide safe aircraft and operate them in a safe manner.

It is NOT safe to offer climbing passes with no cut and no flaps ESPECIALLY in low tailed aircraft, i.e. King Air, Beech 99, PAC750, Caravan.

IT has not, now will ever be, and the USPA has been on board with that idea for MANY years. Long time aircraft operators agree as well, including one of the most notable King Air operators in skydiving, Mike Mullins. One only needs to look at the significant number of fatalities and incidents cause through no cut climbing exits to see it's a bad idea.

Hell, even instructors at the dropzone being discussed know it's foolish and have said as much.

It's not just about the jumper who leaves in a climbing exit's safety, but that of everyone else on the aircraft being put at risk.

It is a jumpers responsibility to jump safely and DZ's responsibility to provide safe aircraft and operate them in a safe manner.

It is NOT safe to offer climbing passes with no cut and no flaps ESPECIALLY in low tailed aircraft, i.e. King Air, Beech 99, PAC750, Caravan.

IT has not, now will ever be, and the USPA has been on board with that idea for MANY years. Long time aircraft operators agree as well, including one of the most notable King Air operators in skydiving, Mike Mullins. One only needs to look at the significant number of fatalities and incidents cause through no cut climbing exits to see it's a bad idea.

Hell, even instructors at the dropzone being discussed know it's foolish and have said as much.

It's not just about the jumper who leaves in a climbing exit's safety, but that of everyone else on the aircraft being put at risk.

As I have said in other threads, I personally have perhaps hundreds of safe low pass climbing exits from low tail aircraft like the King Air 90. So it would not seem reasonable to state categorically that a climbing pass is a priori unsafe.

All that is required is to exit the aircraft downward.

Posing for the camera, as was shown in the advertisement, is not a safe manner to make this exit, but there certainly is a safe way to do it, over and over.

The decision to even provide any low pass exit is a business decision for the dzo. If he sees it as important to his bottom line that he provides it in this manner, that is his choice, and it reflects no careless or reckless behavior. The aircraft is safe as long as the jumper lives up to his responsibility to utilize a safe exit technique.

Speaking of technique, it is possible on a level jumprun with flaps etc, etc, to hit the tail if one's technique is sufficiently inappropriate. Do you want to require that all jumpruns be descending so that the tail is even higher? Should we only use high-tailed aircraft because it is possible to pitch a pilot chute over the tail of a low-tailed aircraft? Use this sort of logic and you will quickly see that all wingsuit jumps from low tailed aircraft are unsafe. Shall we make a rule that wingsuits can only be used with high-tail aircraft?

I am sure that someone will scream that making this decision based on the economics of the situation is somehow a terrible thing.

But, also as I have posted in other threads, we make these decisions all the time. Loading the aircraft would be more safely accomplished with the engines shut down. But that would mean a that a dzo would need 2 or 3 aircraft to provide the same lift capacity as he has now with a single aircraft. This is purely a business decision. How is it different?

Stop coddling the jumper. Coddling the jumper is what is a safety issue, not the climbing low pass.

When USPA makes statements like this one, it is no wonder we have jumpers whining and suing.

USPA's stated purpose is to promote skydiving. This ad directly opposes that goal in that it is clearly assigning blame for poor jumper technique to the dz instead of to the jumper.

Skydiving is not safe. But it can be made safer if each participant knows how to make his contribution safely. In ANY exit situation, it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the jumper to execute his maneuver in a manner safe and consistent with the conditions. Knowing how to make this exit safely is the jumper's responsibility. Trying to make it the responsibility of the dzo or pilot or anyone else is not going to help, because the root of this problem is in the jumper, not anywhere else.

1. The name of the corporation is United States Parachute Association, Inc., hereinafter referred to as USPA.

2. The purposes for which USPA is formed are as follows: To encourage unity among all persons interested in skydiving; to promote safety in all skydiving activities in the United States, to sanction skydiving competitions; to document officially all national and world skydiving records set by citizens of the U.S., to promote and encourage the study and knowledge of skydiving among the membership and the public at large; to cooperate with all government agencies connected with aeronautics or aeronautical activities; to compile information regarding the science of skydiving and to edit, publish, and disseminate the same; to select and train the United States Parachute Team for world competition.

3. The principal office of USPA is in Alexandria, Virginia, or as otherwise directed by the USPA Board of Directors (BOD).

The USPA has said pulling below 2,000 AGL is unsafe, but it's an economic way for people to get more skydive. Heck, DZO's could climb less, and therefor increase profits, and provide more slots and cheaper jumps for their customers.

The USPA has said pulling below 2,000 AGL is unsafe, but it's an economic way for people to get more skydive. Heck, DZO's could climb less, and therefor increase profits, and provide more slots and cheaper jumps for their customers.

People could pull "safe enough" at 1,000 if they knew how to do it.

The question is about safe aircraft configurations for exits, not low pulls.

I'll ask again, if you want to ban climbing exits because a jumper who does it wrong is dangerous to all, should we also say that wingsuits should only be allowed on high-tail aircraft? Tailgates? If not, why not? How are the two problems different?

It is a jumpers responsibility to jump safely and DZ's responsibility to provide safe aircraft and operate them in a safe manner.

It is NOT safe to offer climbing passes with no cut and no flaps ESPECIALLY in low tailed aircraft, i.e. King Air, Beech 99, PAC750, Caravan.

IT has not, now will ever be, and the USPA has been on board with that idea for MANY years. Long time aircraft operators agree as well, including one of the most notable King Air operators in skydiving, Mike Mullins. One only needs to look at the significant number of fatalities and incidents cause through no cut climbing exits to see it's a bad idea.

Hell, even instructors at the dropzone being discussed know it's foolish and have said as much.

It's not just about the jumper who leaves in a climbing exit's safety, but that of everyone else on the aircraft being put at risk.

There seems to be a discrepancy between what people believe and the physics that Jan used. If thats the case then one of them is wrong. - Any physics/math people here that can show where Jan made a mistake? - Or is it possible that the generally accepted "truth" is not correct?

"The critical element of the exit is the "jump-up". All exits without a jump-up are safe. No-cut exits are safe. Climbing, no-cut exits are safe, too. These results agree with what jumpers have been doing for quite sometime.

Exits with a "jump-up" are unsafe. Exactly how far upward an individual jumper needs to jump for a given aircraft geometry, airspeed, attitude and climb rate in order to hit the stabilizer is immaterial at this time. The point is "Don't jump up on exit." What difference is one more foot of altitude going to make when you're already at 12,500 feet? "

"The critical element of the exit is the "jump-up". All exits without a jump-up are safe. No-cut exits are safe. Climbing, no-cut exits are safe, too. These results agree with what jumpers have been doing for quite sometime.

Exits with a "jump-up" are unsafe. Exactly how far upward an individual jumper needs to jump for a given aircraft geometry, airspeed, attitude and climb rate in order to hit the stabilizer is immaterial at this time. The point is "Don't jump up on exit." What difference is one more foot of altitude going to make when you're already at 12,500 feet? "

So, Jeff, do you agree that the ad in Parachutist is over reaching?

I believe that the position put forth in that ad puts any dropzone that disagrees, and offers climbing low pass exits, at an increased risk for a judgement against them in an action like the Lodi tail strike suit.

Personally, I do not want USPA to make statements like that, because there are places that offer that service and have no problems.

And it doesn't even really matter if such a place never has a tail strike accident.

I worry that in some other situation, a plaintiff's lawyer could try to argue about a dropzone's careless attitude because the dropzone, who has had not tail strike accidents, does not comply with the USPA's policy.

"The critical element of the exit is the "jump-up". All exits without a jump-up are safe. No-cut exits are safe. Climbing, no-cut exits are safe, too. These results agree with what jumpers have been doing for quite sometime.

Exits with a "jump-up" are unsafe. Exactly how far upward an individual jumper needs to jump for a given aircraft geometry, airspeed, attitude and climb rate in order to hit the stabilizer is immaterial at this time. The point is "Don't jump up on exit." What difference is one more foot of altitude going to make when you're already at 12,500 feet? "

I too believe that Jan knows the math

If thats the case, then the USPA ad that this thread refers to is incorrect.

It is a jumpers responsibility to jump safely and DZ's responsibility to provide safe aircraft and operate them in a safe manner.

It is NOT safe to offer climbing passes with no cut and no flaps ESPECIALLY in low tailed aircraft, i.e. King Air, Beech 99, PAC750, Caravan.

IT has not, now will ever be, and the USPA has been on board with that idea for MANY years. Long time aircraft operators agree as well, including one of the most notable King Air operators in skydiving, Mike Mullins. One only needs to look at the significant number of fatalities and incidents cause through no cut climbing exits to see it's a bad idea.

Hell, even instructors at the dropzone being discussed know it's foolish and have said as much.

It's not just about the jumper who leaves in a climbing exit's safety, but that of everyone else on the aircraft being put at risk.

There seems to be a discrepancy between what people believe and the physics that Jan used. If thats the case then one of them is wrong. - Any physics/math people here that can show where Jan made a mistake? - Or is it possible that the generally accepted "truth" is not correct?

(meaning only to reinforce Ian's points.)

When the generally accepted "truth" fails to agree with the empirical data, one must suspect that the "truth" was not true in the first place.

Lots of people have made these exits completely safely. A very few have managed to hit the tail.

We would never have a tail strike if the exit was performed properly.

Anything can be dangerous if you do it wrong.

The photo in that particular ad show a jumper posing for the camera, ignoring his responsibility for a safe exit. If he had hit the tail, that photo would be pretty good evidence that the jumper had made an error. It should not be used as evidence that the pilot did something wrong.

Or has posing for the camera somehow become one or our unalienable rights?

If we look at the ad from a logical perspective and read each sentence carefully we may gain the following:

The ad says, “To help avoid tail-strike, pilots must provide skydivers with a properly configured aircraft for every exit.” I agree with that statement, but this is not to say that a flaps-up climbing airplane is not properly configured for skydivers to exit.

However, the prior sentence states “During this low pass, the pilot continued the airplane’s climb to higher altitude, which placed the tail much lower than it should have been during a time when a jumper is exiting.” That statement seems to indicate that the USPA admonishes pilots for continuing to climb to a higher altitude, placing the tail low during exits. That statement concerns me as it is quite possible to exit an airplane in such a configuration safely. Furthermore, in this age of litigation and blame, the statement concerns me as it may provide individuals with avenues for blame in respect to the performance of an airplane pilot, a DZO, and others; for a skydiver’s error in judgment.

The ad continues to promote an inflammatory stance by stating “Jumpers also need to learn to recognize when an aircraft is in level flight and safe to exit.” This statement may allow readers to assume that exiting an aircraft in un-level flight is not safe. Once again, I disagree with the statement.

I do credit the USPA for stating “Additionally, performing a low, diving-type exit can help ensure clearing the tail of an airplane.” That statement is important because unfortunately, we may find ourselves skydiving with individuals who are inexperienced/undereducated, pre-occupied, thoughtless, or perhaps even ignorant.

Moreover, in the ad cited, I take some exception to the USPA contradicting a common and potentially safe procedure. On the other hand, I must praise the USPA for statements made in other recent ads concerned with re-thinking minimum opening altitudes with higher performance canopies and helping to ensure that packers are adequately educated.

>As I see it, these statements shift a great deal of the responsibility for a >safe jump away from the jumper and towards the pilot.

Both people share the responsibility. It is the pilot's responsibility to configure the aircraft for exit before they open the door (or give the signal to open the door.) It is the jumper's responsibility to verify that the aircraft has been configured for exit, that the tail is low enough, the door is open wide enough, the airspeed is low enough etc for a safe exit. It is also his responsibility to perform a type of exit that gives him safe clearance under all conditions.

Safety Day is for both pilots and jumpers. Both need to get the message to make skydiving safer.

>As I see it, these statements shift a great deal of the responsibility for a >safe jump away from the jumper and towards the pilot.

Both people share the responsibility. It is the pilot's responsibility to configure the aircraft for exit before they open the door (or give the signal to open the door.) It is the jumper's responsibility to verify that the aircraft has been configured for exit, that the tail is low enough, the door is open wide enough, the airspeed is low enough etc for a safe exit. It is also his responsibility to perform a type of exit that gives him safe clearance under all conditions.

Safety Day is for both pilots and jumpers. Both need to get the message to make skydiving safer.

Did you even read the ad?

The first thing that USPA said in the ad was that the tail was "much lower than it should have been".

That makes it pretty clear that USPA feels that climbing exits are unacceptable. Doesn't it?

They say that the aircraft must be properly configured, but that was only said after they first said that the climbing aircraft's tail was "much lower than it should have been".

Nearly as an afterthought they add that a jumper should perform a proper exit, when, in fact, a proper exit on the part of the jumper alone would have eliminated all the danger.

It's apparent that in the photo in the ad the tail is much lower than it should have been. The pilot is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, including proper configuration. Heck, you don't need to go much further than FAR §91.113 which says:

"No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

We can go on to look at §91.15, which says:

"No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property."

Allowing an exit with the tail low could certainly endanger the jumper, any jumpers remaining in the aircraft, and anybody on the ground that might be injured by an aircraft with structural damage. It's just not safe. Configuring the aircraft to reduce the likelihood of a tail strike is a necessary and reasonable precaution. There is simply no excuse not to do so.

RiggerPaul, you can search for justification, but there isn't any. USPA is absolutely correct that the pilot is responsible for providing a properly configured aircraft for every exit. And they should say so publicly, and often.

There may be a time when it is appropriate to configure or fly the aircraft differently, but those cases are rare, and should be carefully coordinated between a very experienced jumper and pilot, and additional precautions should be taken to avoid creating a hazard. I'm thinking of some unusual stunt jumps, and not a regular drop zone event. Applying this approach to a conventional commercial operation is just wrong, and especially so when other jumpers may be in the aircraft.

As always, tombuch conveys well informed and cogent viewpoint on the topic of climbing exits. Subsequently, I ask the following question. Is there a specified or recommended window of angles of incline that pilots should remain within during skydiving exits? Of course, we know that correlations do not always indicate causation. In other words, must we remain cognizant to the fact that tail strikes on climbing planes may or may not be the sole responsibility of aircraft pilots? Or instead, is it possible that airplanes involved in skydiver tail strikes may have been flying at a safe incline while the skydiver may have been in error? As tombuch stated, the USPA ad photo does appear to show that the tail of the plane is quite low, possibly as he stated “much lower than it should have been.” On the other hand, the photo also seems to indicate that the jumper may have been more concerned with a photo op than the incline of the plane, and in turn, a safe exit. It appears that this issue needs more discussion and subsequent training for all involved in skydiving operations. It also opens the door for analyzing the effects of having cameras on jumps as they relate to individuals becoming distracted from performing safe procedures.

"The critical element of the exit is the "jump-up". All exits without a jump-up are safe. No-cut exits are safe. Climbing, no-cut exits are safe, too. These results agree with what jumpers have been doing for quite sometime.

I disagree. I've left a DZ that had a King Air because the pilot would keep climbing and not throttle back. I would have to ball up on exit and even then would come much closer than I'd like to the tail. I'm pretty damn sure if I had done a regular exit (not jumping up) I'd have hit the tail.

"No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

Can't this also be applied to the skydiver leaving the a/c as well? He/she has a responsibility not to injure themselves or damage the aircraft, which can endanger those still on the plane.

No citations were given out by the FAA in this case, therefore the authority in this case feels that a climbing pass is within normal operating parameters and it is up to the skydiver to exit accordingly or not exit at all. USPA, TomB, etc are not the authorities, the FAA is, and they feel it is ultimately the jumpers responsibility.

I have over 5000 h/p exits in Lodi and all over the world, there is no guarantee of any aircraft being "properly configured for exit." All you can do is communicate with the pilot, monitor the conditions before you exit, and not be afraid to ask for a go around or ride the plane down.

It's apparent that in the photo in the ad the tail is much lower than it should have been. The pilot is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, including proper configuration. Heck, you don't need to go much further than FAR §91.113 which says:

"No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

We can go on to look at §91.15, which says:

"No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property."

Allowing an exit with the tail low could certainly endanger the jumper, any jumpers remaining in the aircraft, and anybody on the ground that might be injured by an aircraft with structural damage. It's just not safe. Configuring the aircraft to reduce the likelihood of a tail strike is a necessary and reasonable precaution. There is simply no excuse not to do so.

RiggerPaul, you can search for justification, but there isn't any. USPA is absolutely correct that the pilot is responsible for providing a properly configured aircraft for every exit. And they should say so publicly, and often.

There may be a time when it is appropriate to configure or fly the aircraft differently, but those cases are rare, and should be carefully coordinated between a very experienced jumper and pilot, and additional precautions should be taken to avoid creating a hazard. I'm thinking of some unusual stunt jumps, and not a regular drop zone event. Applying this approach to a conventional commercial operation is just wrong, and especially so when other jumpers may be in the aircraft.

Tom, please clarify.

Are you saying the tail was much lower than it should have been for a climbing aircraft?

Or are you saying it is much lower than it should have been for an exit?

Are you telling us that a climbing exit from a Cessna Caravan is a violation of the FARs?